May 21, 1916.

Dear Grigory!

I do not wish to turn our correspondence into a quarrel. The question is a serious one, and although I have spoken of it more than once already, I shall repeat it out of necessity.

After more than half a year's work with the "publishers" (the Kiev ones) and several months of thorough consideration of this experience, the editorial board of _Sbornik "Sotsial-Demokrata"_ wrote them a letter in the winter of 1915, which you yourself signed. In this letter the editorial board declared that it was withdrawing from participation in _Kommunist_ on the basis of an entire series of extraordinarily carefully set out considerations, which occupied a great deal of space in our letter and boiled down to the following: we cannot assume party responsibility for such co-editors, their relationship to the work is non-party in character, and the temporary attempt at coordination must be counted as having failed.

We decided to issue the _Sbornik "Sotsial-Demokrata"_.

Then doubts arose on your part, which led to our last conversation in Kienthal. I made you a concession, agreeing to an attempt at restoring relations on the conditions of: (1) a contract between the editorial board of _Sbornik "Sotsial-Demokrata"_ and the publishers from book to book; (2) their renunciation of a group position of an "imperialist-economistic" character and of their "playing games" with our disagreements with Radek, etc.

These conditions were not put down in writing, and you are now disputing them. But this dispute became unimportant after you yourself set forth in writing, in a draft letter to A., your conditions, and the publishers did not even accept these conditions! (and you assured me that the matter was settled, that they would not insist on equality of rights!).

The fact, consequently, is this: even if after our meeting in Kienthal we accept your "interpretation"—that is, that I set greater conditions than you—your lesser conditions have still been rejected by the publishers.

It goes without saying that your direct and unconditional duty after this was to attack the publishers with all your might, break with them finally, and employ every effort to prove to Alexander the impossibility of having anything to do with these gentlemen as editors of a leading journal.

Instead of this, you propose surrendering to them, renouncing all conditions, taking back the letter signed by you from the editorial board! And this—under the pretext that "they are not worth taking seriously": in reality you are proposing that your politics not be taken seriously, you are reducing the letter of the editorial board to the devil knows what, you are disavowing yourself and giving the publishers the right to draw the conclusion that the editorial board engaged in willful obstinacy!

This is no longer merely vacillation, this is vacillation cubed, which transforms itself into something far worse.

I am left only to repeat for the last time why I am not going into _Kommunist_, why I consider it anti-party and harmful, why I remain on the position of the editorial board's letter about breaking with the publishers.

With the publishers we concluded a temporary "federation," calling it precisely a "federation" and stipulating quite definitely its temporary character, "by way of experiment." When we concluded this temporary union, the publishers spoke out against Bukharin's waverings (at the conference in Bern in March 1915³⁰⁰), and there was not a single fact indicating the consolidation of this group of three (publishers + Bukharin) with special views.

After the very first book of the journal, such consolidation took place among them, and when I, after lengthy preliminary correspondence, called their tendency "imperialist economism," you wrote to me that you agreed. This was in March 1916. This confirmed once more the most thorough winter letter of the editorial board.

The party—and international—situation is now such that the Central Committee must continue to move forward independently, not tying its own hands either in Russian or in international affairs. The "publishers," good for nothing as writers and as politicians (which the editorial board was forced to acknowledge in its winter letter), want to bind us by a contract on equal rights—that is, we must agree to grant equality of rights to a woman who has not written a single line and understands nothing whatever, and to a "young man" entirely under her influence. And they use this equality of rights to play games with our disagreements with Radek, with Bukharin, etc.!

It is simply madness to agree to equality of rights under such conditions; it means ruining all our work.

It is not true that they want "only discussion." They have every opportunity for discussion. They have money. Nearly a year has passed. Why don't they write and publish discussion pamphlets? Because they do not want to bear responsibility themselves! This is clear. And therein lies the mockery of party spirit, for whoever announces disagreements must think the matter through, come forward openly, bear responsibility, and not "play games" or make claims to "equality of rights" when the party does not even know their position (and when they have no position).

That Bukharin stumbles at every step into those views which he set forth in writing in March 1915 (at the conference) and which you also rejected—this is a fact. You acknowledged this fact by agreeing in March 1916 (a year later) with my assessment of "imperialist economism."

By granting "equality of rights," you are granting Bukharin's waverings equality of rights before the party! You are tying our hands and encouraging these waverings. This is a mad policy.

You know that Radek, in the first place, became so "offended" (by the fact that we insisted on placing our theses in Pannekouk's journal³⁰¹) that, as you yourself wrote to me in March 1916, he conducts "no collegial work" with you! And disagreements with him have not disappeared; on the contrary, you yourself agreed with me that his assessment of the Irish uprising is vulgar. And you propose to grant "equality of rights" to the publishers, who hide behind Radek, playing (for 2000 francs!*) on our disagreements with him!! This is a mad policy.

*—francs!—Francs! —Ed.

In the second place, Radek is one matter, and the editorial board of his newspaper (_Gazeta Robotnicha_) is another. That this newspaper also conducted such games (playing with the Tseretelli faction, with Trotsky, etc.), you yourself acknowledged. Recall that this newspaper appeared in February 1916 and that with your participation a letter from _Sbornik "Sotsial-Demokrata"_ was being worked out against it. Well, is this serious politics if we now in our leading journal give "equality of rights" to people who want to make a career out of "using" our struggle with the Poles who betrayed us before Vandervelde and Kautsky on July 3/16, 1914??

In the third place, you know that in Kienthal Radek wanted to outvote us among the left, at a meeting of the left, using Frölich, Robmann, and so forth, and that an ultimatum was required to force him to recognize the independence of our Central Committee.

What other "games" will be played by these people when the question arises of our attitude toward Junius (this question has already arisen) or toward "mechanical separation" from the Kautskyists, etc.! Are you vouching that there will be none?? If so, this would amount on your part to a renunciation of our entire policy. If not, then it is mad to tie our hands afterward in the editorial board of our leading journal.

Under no circumstances am I going along with this mad policy. This is my final decision. I continue to think that the publication of the _Sbornik "Sotsial-Demokrata"_ alone unravels the matter (which you want to hopelessly tangle). The _Sbornik "Sotsial-Demokrata"_ rallies around us a whole series of most useful workers (Varin, Safarov, the Latvians, etc.), pulls Bukharin away from the publishers toward us, gives us the possibility of leading the party (and the international left), rather than going in the wake of... a lady publisher.

Write to me precisely about your decision. Formally the matter now stands thus: the editorial board has broken with _Kommunist_, and its last attempt (even your lesser conditions) has been rejected. This means we must announce the cessation of _Kommunist_ and the appearance of the _Sbornik "Sotsial-Demokrata"_.

I clasp your hand and send salut!*

V. U.

Sent from Zurich to Bern

First published in 1934

_Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya_ No. 4

Printed from the manuscript